On a night when the City Council chambers were packed with advocates speaking out against efforts to amend the city’s immigrant friendly policy, more than a dozen speakers also took to the lectern to criticize proposed changes to the city charter.
They referred to the proposal that would allow candidates to be elected with at least 40% of the total vote instead of 50% as “antidemocratic” and “a recipe for ineffective government” and urged a move to ranked choice voting as the meeting continued past 11 p.m.
Read about the vote on changes to the city’s immigrant friendly policy here.
Controversy on voting changes
City Councilors Dan Lewis, Klarissa Peña and Renée Grout had introduced proposals to amend the city’s charter by — among other items — changing the city’s majority rules for voting and the appointment and removal of key officials. The proposals were scheduled to be debated at the council’s May 20 meeting but were postponed to the June 3 meeting.
Monday night, the council once again deferred the proposals until the next meeting on June 17.
The proposal to change the voting majority rules would allow a mayor or city councilor to be elected with at least 40% of the total vote. Concerned community members said if the council wishes to change the voting rules, a ranked choice voting system should be adopted. Councilors Nichole Rogers and Tammy Fiebelkorn introduced an ordinance to do just that, but it failed on a 3-6 vote.
A ranked choice voting system allows voters to rank candidates by preference on the ballot.
Lewis said the proposals he put forward have taken shape because of feedback and discussion with the public. He said he likes the idea of ranked choice voting but it is “incredibly confusing to voters.”
“I think there is nothing more undemocratic than run-off elections where votes are suppressed — there is a lot of voter suppression that happens when you have a small turnout,” Lewis said. “This is an attempt to address voter suppression when it comes to run-off elections. We have done this for 10 years and it’s time for the people to decide on whether this is how they want their government to run.”
Sila Avcil, executive director of New Mexico Open Elections, told the council that voters have elected candidates with more than 50% support since 2013 and that should not change.
“Winners with only 40% of the vote do not have a mandate to govern,” Avcil said. “Ranked choice voting is a better alternative; it still allows for candidates to win with 50% plus one public support. It eliminates costly runoff elections with low unrepresentative turnout as it automatically calculates voters’ preferences in order and it provides more options and a better voice for all voters at the polls.”
A representative for Common Cause New Mexico, Mason Graham, also spoke in opposition to the proposal and said majority rule is a foundational principle of representative democracy and to change it would be “alarming” and a “recipe for ineffective government.”
While he said he agrees that the charter should be regularly assessed, Councilor Joaquín Baca said it should not be done over a few weeks.
“Using democracy to take away the ruling majority is not democracy,” Baca said.
Read previous coverage of the charter proposals here.
Other charter changes
Councilors also deferred a proposal to adopt a committee composed of mayoral and City Council appointees to recommend candidates for possible appointment as city clerk and city attorney. Currently, the mayor appoints the city clerk and city attorney with “advice and consent” from two-thirds of the council.
Another proposal introduced by Lewis and Peña would change the process to remove the Albuquerque Police Department and Albuquerque Fire Rescue chiefs. The council currently has the authority to remove a chief but must have a reason. This proposal would allow the mayor to terminate a chief at any time but allow the council to terminate the employment agreement with notice to the chief and mayor, along with a two-thirds vote of the council.
Before postponing the proposal, councilors discussed changing the number of days a person may serve in an interim position. Currently, the amendment states that a person may not serve in an interim chief position for longer than 90 days. To ensure they have sufficient time to fill a position, the council changed that to 270 days.
Adding to the list is a proposal to establish a process for filling vacancies on a three-member conference committee that resolves disputes between the executive and legislative branches.
Due to multiple proposed changes, Councilors Fiebelkorn, Rogers and Baca introduced another resolution to create a task force to review the charter and make recommendations on the proposed revisions.
Fiebelkorn said she thinks there needs to be more public input before the council votes on the charter changes. She said the changes have not been discussed until almost 10 p.m. at every meeting, which is not adequate time to receive public input.
Lewis recommended deferring that resolution until the next meeting so council members can further review the possibility of convening a task force and the duties of the task force.
Coronado Dog Park
In other business, the council declared the Coronado Dog Park nonessential for city use in a 6-3 vote. Residents in the area were against the move, which would allow the property to be put up for sale and remove the park.
The council also approved a resolution that would allow the revenue from the sale to go toward other parks in the area.
Nonprofit journalism like this depends on readers like you. This story is supported by City Desk ABQ, a nonprofit newsroom project of Citizen Media Group supporting news and politics coverage that inspires readers to participate in local democracy. Become a supporter to keep City Desk free and support nonprofit, independent journalists covering politics and policy f0r New Mexico newsrooms.